Author name: RVM News

Burka, Fake Names, and Eight Mystery Voters: O’Keefe Shreds Minnesota’s Vouching Scam [WATCH]
News

Burka, Fake Names, and Eight Mystery Voters: O’Keefe Shreds Minnesota’s Vouching Scam [WATCH]

/

James O’Keefe has placed Minnesota election procedures under fresh scrutiny after an undercover team recorded poll workers describing a voter registration process in which one person can allegedly verify the residence of others.

The footage raises serious questions about whether the state’s vouching rules leave enough room for abuse.

At the center of the report is a remarkably blunt explanation from election personnel.

According to the undercover account, poll workers told the team that “you’re the ID,” suggesting a registered voter’s word could substitute for conventional identification when confirming another person’s eligibility.

Another worker reportedly confirmed that O’Keefe could personally vouch for individuals who were not already registered.

The worker said, “I can vouch for them. They are not registered… That’s okay. That’s fine. Yeah!”

WATCH:

That exchange is politically explosive because election security depends on clear rules, consistent enforcement, and reliable verification.

When a poll worker appears casual about registering people who lack documentation, voters are entitled to wonder whether the safeguards are meaningful or merely decorative.

Vouching itself does not automatically prove that an illegal vote was cast, and the published text does not establish that any fraudulent ballot was counted.

It does, however, reveal an apparent opening that could invite manipulation if poorly trained officials or political operatives decide to stretch the rules.

That distinction matters, but it does not excuse complacency.

Election laws should prevent misconduct before it happens, not rely on blind faith that every participant will behave honorably while officials wave people through with a smile and a shrug.

The report also leaves several important details unanswered, including the polling location, the date of the recorded conversation, and the full instructions provided to the workers involved.

Releasing complete footage and additional context would help Minnesotans judge exactly how broadly the vouching process was described.

Minnesota election authorities should address the recording directly and explain the precise limits imposed on anyone who vouches for another voter.

They should also clarify what records are created, what penalties apply to false statements, and how officials detect coordinated efforts to exploit the process.

If the workers accurately described state policy, lawmakers have a responsibility to examine whether the law provides adequate protection.

If the workers misunderstood the rules, election administrators must explain why personnel responsible for registration were apparently giving such sweeping assurances.

Either possibility demands attention.

A weak rule creates an obvious vulnerability, while confused poll workers create a different vulnerability that can be just as damaging when ballots, public trust, and control of government are at stake.

Americans have spent years hearing that questions about election administration are dangerous or illegitimate.

That familiar lecture rings hollow whenever reporters capture officials describing procedures that ordinary voters would reasonably view as alarmingly loose.

Confidence is not created by scolding citizens, censoring debate, or insisting that only approved institutions may investigate.

It is earned through transparent laws, verifiable procedures, competent workers, and prompt answers when credible concerns emerge.

The outlet presenting the report also emphasized its independence from establishment media and warned about cancel culture, corporate wokeism, political correctness, and corruption within powerful institutions.

It asked readers to financially support independent reporting at a moment when trust in legacy news organizations continues to erode.

That appeal reflects a larger media battle surrounding election coverage.

Major outlets often treat conservative concerns as suspect from the opening sentence, while independent journalists pursue questions that comfortable political institutions would rather leave buried beneath procedure manuals and rehearsed talking points.

O’Keefe’s report now puts the burden on Minnesota officials to provide facts rather than slogans.

Voters deserve to know how many people one individual may vouch for, what proof is required from the voucher, and whether officials verify those claims after registration.

The cleanest response is full disclosure, clear enforcement, and rules strong enough to survive public examination.

When a poll worker can apparently tell someone “you’re the ID,” skepticism is not extremism, it is common sense.

JD Vance Warns Republicans Not to Scapegoat Young Americans Drawn to Socialism [WATCH]
News

JD Vance Warns Republicans Not to Scapegoat Young Americans Drawn to Socialism [WATCH]

/

Vice President JD Vance issued a blunt warning to Republicans on Thursday, telling the party that it cannot simply blame young Americans for socialism gaining ground.

If the GOP fails to address the economic pressures driving that appeal, Vance argued, Republicans will share responsibility for the consequences.

During an appearance on “The Will Cain Show,” Vance defended younger voters from the easy accusation that they are embracing socialism out of ignorance or entitlement.

Many are struggling to obtain the stable jobs, affordable homes, and family lives that previous generations viewed as ordinary parts of the American dream.

“My warning to my fellow Republicans would be: If we don’t get this right, don’t blame young people for being sympathetic to socialism. We’ve got to blame ourselves,” Vance told Fox News host Will Cain.

That is not an endorsement of socialism, but a demand that Republicans offer something stronger than another dusty lecture.

The warning arrives as socialist activists tighten their influence inside the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Socialists of America continues pushing candidates and policies that would drag the country further left while dressing government control in the language of fairness and compassion.

Michigan Democrat Abdul El Sayed and Minnesota Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan recently captured important Democratic United States Senate primary victories. DSA member Francesca Hong, however, failed in her bid during Wisconsin’s Democratic gubernatorial primary.

Vance was clear about the ideology itself, describing socialism as “dangerous and destructive.”

His point was that condemning a disastrous political doctrine does not excuse Republicans from confronting the real economic frustration that is “feeding” its appeal among younger Americans.

Housing offers the clearest example of that frustration.

The median price of a single family home in the United States has climbed above $430,000, according to Redfin data analyzed by Forbes, leaving many younger workers wondering whether ownership will ever be within reach.

For previous generations, a home was not merely a roof and four walls.

It was a source of stability, a foundation for raising children, and one of the most reliable ways for ordinary Americans to build wealth without waiting for Washington to rescue them.

Socialist candidates have eagerly exploited the anger produced by rising prices and fading opportunities.

Their solutions would empower government, punish success, and eventually make scarcity worse, but their sales pitch becomes more persuasive when Republicans fail to demonstrate that conservative policies can produce tangible results.

Vance addressed struggling young Americans directly, telling them they deserve a government that removes barriers instead of piling on more costs.

“I would say to that young person that you as an American citizen deserve to have a good life in this country, and you deserve to have a government that is making it easier for you to start a family, for you to afford to get a good education, for you to have a good job, for you to afford a home,” he said.

That message reflects a practical strain of economic conservatism focused on whether citizens can actually build productive and independent lives.

Freedom sounds far more convincing when working people can afford groceries, save money, purchase homes, and raise children without feeling crushed by every monthly bill.

Vance said the Trump administration’s economic agenda is already producing gains, including “stabilized” housing prices.

He also pointed to trillions of dollars in new domestic investment that could create solid middle-class employment for younger workers and families across the country.

The vice president’s argument presents Republicans with both a political warning and a governing challenge.

Conservatives cannot permit Democrats to wreck affordability through inflation, regulation, reckless spending, and open border policies, then watch socialists pose as the heroic solution to damage created by the left.

At the same time, Republicans must resist the temptation to answer every anxious young voter with slogans and finger-wagging.

A generation facing enormous home prices, expensive education, and uncertain career prospects will judge the party by results, not by how loudly politicians recite economic theory.

“You don’t stop socialism by throwing slogans at people about the free market,” Vance said.

“As much as I love the free market, you stop socialism by making people’s lives better, and that’s what we’re trying to do every single day.”

WATCH:

That is the hard truth for the GOP.

Socialism remains a proven failure, but defeating it requires more than correctly calling it a failure, because Republicans must make prosperity visible, attainable, and real for Americans who increasingly fear the American dream is slipping away.

WATCH:

Transgender American Flees Trump’s America, Finds Europe Worse, and Comes Back Humbled [WATCH]
News

Transgender American Flees Trump’s America, Finds Europe Worse, and Comes Back Humbled [WATCH]

/

A transgender American who fled the United States after President Donald Trump returned to the White House has come back to California after failing to secure asylum in the Netherlands.

The attempted escape ended with a blunt admission from the traveler that leaving America was a spectacular mistake.

Jane Michelle Arc, a 48 year old software engineer from California, departed for Europe in April 2025, claiming fear for personal safety because of gender identity.

Arc had lived in San Francisco and pointed to harassment, threats, and an encounter with a driver who allegedly threatened to kill her.

Upon landing at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport, Arc asked authorities how to seek asylum and was eventually transferred to the Ter Apel reception center.

The sprawling facility, which houses about 2,000 asylum seekers, has struggled for years with crowding, violence, and serious security problems.

The European refuge Arc imagined quickly collided with the reality inside the asylum system.

It did not take long for Arc to decide that Ter Apel and its surrounding area felt more dangerous than the country left behind.

“This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done,” Arc told The Guardian while staying at the facility.

Arc said fear in America had driven the drastic decision to pursue refuge overseas.

Arc also reported hostility from other asylum seekers because of transgender status and eventually became afraid to make ordinary trips beyond the center.

During an interview with Dutch broadcaster PowNews, Arc described a severe personal toll and warned that staying could create an immediate threat to physical safety.

“The situation I have in the US as a trans person, not good, right?” Arc said.

“But here, I will be hurt or killed.”

That grim assessment arrived during an especially troubled summer at Ter Apel.

WATCH:

Dutch News reported that aid groups temporarily halted their work after several fights, including two stabbings, hardly the welcoming European sanctuary that activists and political fantasists might picture from the comfort of an American city.

Dutch authorities added security guards and surveillance cameras while introducing measures aimed at preventing asylum seekers from being stranded outside during periods of overcrowding.

Those steps revealed just how strained the system had become, even in a nation often praised by the left as enlightened.

Arc eventually returned to California without receiving asylum protection.

The case formed part of an unusual surge in American applications after Trump resumed office, suggesting that a small group of Americans took partisan panic seriously enough to test whether Europe would validate it.

Dutch government data show that 76 Americans sought asylum in the Netherlands in 2025, up from nine in 2024 and 18 in 2023.

Of the 60 American cases decided during 2025, none produced a residence permit, according to figures reported by Dutch and European media.

Forty applications were rejected, while 20 concluded without a substantive decision.

The numbers offer a rather unforgiving reality check for those treating ordinary American political disputes as grounds for international refuge.

Arc had cited Trump administration policy on gender identity as one reason for leaving.

Soon after taking office, Trump signed an executive order directing the federal government to recognize two sexes, male and female, while his administration reversed several Biden administration policies centered on gender identity.

Dutch officials have said political developments in the United States do not justify a general assumption that LGBT Americans face persecution.

The government explained in a 2025 response to parliamentary questions that each asylum request must establish a credible individual fear of persecution or serious mistreatment.

For Arc, the grand asylum experiment ended exactly where it began, back in California.

Despite continuing criticism of conditions for transgender Americans, Arc concluded that life in the United States was preferable to remaining inside the Dutch asylum system.

“I did it because I was afraid for my life,” Arc said when explaining the departure.

Looking back after the failed bid and difficult stay, Arc called the choice “wildly stupid.”

Federal Appeals Court Hands Trump Massive Victory in Alien Enemies Act Fight [WATCH]
News

Federal Appeals Court Hands Trump Massive Victory in Alien Enemies Act Fight [WATCH]

/

President Donald Trump scored a major legal victory Thursday when the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a central lawsuit challenging his use of the Alien Enemies Act.

The ruling removes another courtroom obstacle from the administration’s effort to deport dangerous Venezuelan gang members.

The court considered the matter with its entire roster of active judges rather than relying on the smaller panel that previously addressed the dispute.

Judges concluded that the lawsuit could no longer proceed because the three men who originally brought the challenge had already been removed from the United States.

“The Supreme Court remanded this case to us when the three named petitioners were still in the country. But we have since learned that the government has removed them. Given this change, we conclude that the appeal is moot,” the judges wrote.

The court explained that there was no remaining petitioner eligible to receive relief and no certified class that could keep the litigation alive.

That left the judges without jurisdiction, regardless of how badly Trump’s opponents wanted another sweeping judicial roadblock.

“Given the lack of any named petitioners to whom we could grant relief in this appeal, and given that this case has never and does not now feature any class, we conclude that the appeal is moot. We therefore DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction,” the judges wrote.

WATCH:

Judge James Ho, who was appointed by Trump, filed a forceful concurring opinion supporting the president’s authority under the Alien Enemies Act.

His opinion offered a robust defense of presidential power in an area involving immigration enforcement, hostile foreign actors, and public safety.

Trump invoked the law as part of his campaign to remove members of Tren de Aragua, the violent Venezuelan gang that expanded its footprint inside the United States.

The administration has argued that the statute provides necessary authority to act against dangerous foreign gang members before they can cause additional harm.

Several district court judges had ruled against Trump’s use of the law, giving open border activists and their legal allies temporary victories.

A federal judge in Pennsylvania, however, became the first to conclude that Trump could invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Tren de Aragua members.

The legal battle later reached the Supreme Court, which temporarily blocked the administration from carrying out certain deportations under the statute.

In an unsigned order, the justices said targeted Venezuelans had not received enough time or information to challenge their removals through the courts.

“Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,” the unsigned decision read.

The Supreme Court then returned the dispute to the Fifth Circuit for additional proceedings.

Before the full court considered the case, a three judge Fifth Circuit panel had voted against Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act.

Thursday’s ruling did not broadly settle every legal question surrounding the statute, but it eliminated this particular appeal.

The dismissal also showed the practical limits of litigation built around petitioners who are no longer present and a case that was never certified as a class action.

For Trump, the outcome represents another significant victory in his broader struggle to restore serious immigration enforcement after years of chaos.

His administration has repeatedly argued that presidents must have meaningful tools to confront foreign gangs rather than wait for violent criminals to exploit legal delays.

The decision also leaves immigration activists without the relief they sought from this lawsuit. Washington’s legal resistance machine can file another stack of papers, but this appeal is finished, and the full Fifth Circuit made that unmistakably clear.

Gun Rights Groups Seize Monumental Victory as Judge Smashes Decades of Federal Restrictions [WATCH]
News

Gun Rights Groups Seize Monumental Victory as Judge Smashes Decades of Federal Restrictions [WATCH]

/

Gun rights advocates are moving quickly to capitalize on a federal court victory that dismantled decades of Washington restrictions on suppressors.

The ruling has already produced what activists describe as the first lawful transfers without National Firearms Act registration since 1934.

Gun Owners of America and Silencer Shop notified the Trump administration Thursday that they intended to begin transferring suppressors without the federal registration and approval process.

That bureaucratic maze had controlled such transactions for generations while threatening ordinary gun owners with severe criminal penalties.

WATCH:

Just after midnight Thursday, Brandon Herrera and Texas state Rep. Wes Virdell walked out of a firearms dealer in Leander, Texas, with suppressors obtained from Silencer Shop.

Gun Owners of America said the transactions marked a historic break from more than nine decades of federal control.

“This is the first time in 92 years that any gun owner has been able to do this,” Aidan Johnston, Gun Owners of America’s director of federal affairs, told Fox News Digital.

Johnston emphasized that the former penalties were hardly a minor paperwork inconvenience.

“Previously, this would have been punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine per violation. So, this was a big federal law. We took a really big bite out of it.”

Suppressors have become increasingly popular among hunters, recreational shooters, and other gun owners seeking to protect their hearing.

Despite Hollywood mythology and liberal panic, suppressors do not magically silence firearms, but they can reduce damaging noise and make shooting safer.

Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Georgia Republican who attended the midnight transfers, helped craft the legislation that prepared the ground for the court victory.

He called it “literally, the greatest Second Amendment win in the history of our country,” and described it as “a monumental day for the country and a monumental day for the Second Amendment.”

The federal government also appears unlikely to challenge the decision.

Clyde said Wednesday that he had received confirmation from the Trump administration that the Justice Department would not appeal, potentially allowing the ruling to stand without another round of federal resistance.

Gun Owners of America senior vice president Erich Pratt said the organization had promised its members that the fight would continue beyond the initial legislation.

The group is now putting that pledge into practice instead of waiting for Washington regulators to invent another excuse for delay.

“GOA fought to crush the NFA’s unconstitutional restrictions through the One Big Beautiful Bill, but we didn’t stop there. We promised to keep fighting until these restrictions were gone, and now our members are putting the historic victory into action,” Pratt said.

“The era of federal registration for constitutionally protected arms must end.”

WATCH:

The legal battle grew from the Republican reconciliation package passed in 2025.

That legislation initially sought broader relief from National Firearms Act restrictions involving suppressors, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and certain other weapons.

After the Senate parliamentarian blocked portions of the effort under reconciliation rules, the final One Big Beautiful Bill Act took another route.

President Donald Trump signed legislation reducing the longstanding federal making and transfer taxes for the affected weapons to zero dollars, effective January 1, 2026.

Gun rights organizations recognized the constitutional opening immediately.

On the same day Trump signed the law, Gun Owners of America, the Silencer Shop Foundation, and other plaintiffs sued the federal government, with fifteen states later joining the challenge.

Their argument was straightforward.

If Congress eliminated the tax that supposedly justified the registration system, then the government could no longer pretend the remaining restrictions were necessary to collect revenue.

“Congress didn’t fully repeal the law. They just reduced this 1934 tax from $200 to $0,” Johnston told Fox News Digital.

“And I think all of us could understand there’s no such thing as a $0 tax. It doesn’t raise any revenue. It’s not a tax.”

The Justice Department argued that other National Firearms Act taxes and congressional power over interstate commerce could support the remaining regulations.

That position did not persuade United States District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Trump appointee who issued his decision on August 5.

Hendrix ruled that once Congress erased the making and transfer taxes, the regulations designed to help collect those taxes lost their constitutional basis.

He permanently blocked federal officials from enforcing the challenged requirements against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their members and customers.

The judge declined to issue a nationwide injunction, meaning the ruling does not automatically erase the restrictions for every person in the country.

Still, the first completed transfers show that the decision is producing concrete results rather than merely generating another stack of legal briefs.

The plaintiffs also argued that the registration and approval requirements violated the Second Amendment.

Hendrix did not resolve that broader claim, writing that “Efforts to render the NFA constitutional must come from Congress, not this Court.”

For gun owners who have watched federal agencies stretch old statutes into sprawling regulatory regimes, the victory is substantial. Congress reduced the tax to nothing, a federal judge followed the constitutional logic, and the Trump administration appears prepared to let the ruling stand.

The midnight transactions in Texas transformed that legal victory into reality.

After 92 years of federal registration, threats, fees, and red tape, two Americans exercised their rights without first begging Washington for permission.

Hochul’s Migrant Legal Giveaway Exposes Democrats’ Contempt for American Citizens
News

Hochul’s Migrant Legal Giveaway Exposes Democrats’ Contempt for American Citizens

/

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced Wednesday that the state will provide $7.25 million to cover legal expenses for approximately 1,400 unaccompanied migrant children facing removal proceedings, as reported by Townhall.

Hochul made the announcement during a press conference in Manhattan alongside New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and state Attorney General Letitia James.

The funding is expected to assist migrant children involved in immigration proceedings, including approximately 250 who are currently being held in detention.

When discussing the state’s decision to provide the funding, Hochul offered an emphatic response to critics, saying, “Damn right I did.”

The announcement followed the Trump administration’s decision to allow a federal contract involving a nationwide network of approximately 100 organizations that provide services to migrant children to lapse in July.

Under federal policy, children who enter the United States alone are generally placed under the care of the federal government.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, typically works to place those children with an adult sponsor. Sponsors can include a parent, relative or family friend.

The state funding is connected to legal representation provided to migrant minors during immigration proceedings.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, enacted during the George W. Bush administration, provides for legal representation for certain unaccompanied migrant children during deportation proceedings.

New York’s decision comes as immigration remains one of the most closely watched political issues in the country.

Hochul and other Democratic officials in New York have repeatedly supported expanded services for migrants, while Republicans have argued that state and federal resources should be focused more heavily on American citizens and legal residents.

The $7.25 million commitment represents a state-level response to the loss of the federal contract and is intended to prevent migrant children from being left without attorneys during their immigration cases.

The announcement also drew attention to the role of the Office of Refugee Resettlement in caring for unaccompanied minors.

The agency has faced scrutiny over the handling of migrant children during the Biden administration. Critics have raised concerns about the government’s ability to track children after they are released to sponsors.

Hochul’s decision is likely to add another layer to the ongoing debate over how much state governments should spend addressing the consequences of illegal immigration.

New York has been among the states and municipalities that have devoted significant public resources to migrant-related services during the recent surge in arrivals.

The governor’s announcement also comes after a dramatic reduction in illegal border crossings following the return of President Donald Trump to the White House.

The administration has made border enforcement and deportations central elements of its immigration policy.

The dispute over the proper role of government-funded legal assistance for migrants is unlikely to end with New York’s latest spending decision.

Supporters say legal representation is necessary to ensure children receive due process in immigration court.

Critics counter that taxpayers should not be expected to finance legal services for people who entered the country illegally while many Americans struggle to afford basic legal assistance themselves.

For New York, however, the policy is now clear: The state will spend millions of dollars helping approximately 1,400 migrant children navigate immigration proceedings, including those being held in detention.

The funding places New York among the jurisdictions continuing to provide state-level support for migrants as Washington takes a different approach to immigration enforcement.

Lauren Boebert’s Son Tyler Accepts Plea Deal in Child Abuse Case
News

Lauren Boebert’s Son Tyler Accepts Plea Deal in Child Abuse Case

/

Tyler Boebert, the son of Rep. Lauren Boebert, has accepted a plea agreement in a child abuse case that could result in a short jail sentence and supervised probation, according to court documents obtained by TMZ.

The agreement was offered by the Weld County District Attorney’s Office and calls for Tyler to plead guilty to charges of child abuse and negligence without injury.

Under the proposed agreement, prosecutors are asking the court to impose a maximum sentence of 30 days in jail, followed by 12 months of supervised probation.

The deal also requires Tyler to complete a parenting program.

The case stems from allegations involving Tyler’s child and incidents that authorities say occurred while the child was under his care.

According to the court documents, authorities initially became involved after the child was found wandering around a neighborhood in July 2025.

Prosecutors later alleged that another incident had taken place about a month earlier.

In that earlier incident, prosecutors said the child was left unattended before a neighbor discovered the child. The court documents describe the child as “wandering around” while wearing only a diaper.

The allegations led to charges of child abuse and negligence without injury against Tyler.

Before prosecutors disclosed the second alleged incident, Lauren Boebert publicly defended her son and said he had been working to improve his life and his role as a father.

“Tyler has been doing a great job getting his life on track as a father and citizen over the past year.”

The Colorado congresswoman also addressed the circumstances surrounding the July 2025 incident.

“Unfortunately, this event stems from a miscommunication on monitoring my young grandson that recently led to him getting out of our house.”

The case involving Tyler has also included a separate set of criminal allegations.

According to the report, Tyler was arrested over the weekend on charges related to child sexual exploitation.

Authorities said those allegations stem from a video Tyler recorded when he was 18 involving his then-girlfriend, who was reportedly only weeks away from turning 18 at the time.

The woman later contacted police after the recording was circulated to third parties, according to the report.

The separate arrest adds another legal matter to the situation surrounding Tyler, although the plea agreement described in the court documents concerns the child abuse and negligence case.

The proposed resolution in that case does not call for a lengthy prison sentence.

Instead, prosecutors recommended a jail term capped at 30 days along with a year of supervised probation and completion of a parenting program.

The final sentence will be determined by the court.

Lauren Boebert, a Republican who represents Colorado in Congress, has remained publicly involved in defending her family amid the legal proceedings involving her son.

The child abuse case has received attention because of Tyler’s connection to the congresswoman and because prosecutors later brought forward allegations involving a second incident that was not initially part of the public account of the case.

The plea agreement now gives the court a proposed path toward resolving the child abuse and negligence charges without a lengthy trial.

The allegations remain separate from the charges connected to the video involving Tyler and his former girlfriend.

Those charges arose from a different investigation and were reported after the child abuse case was already underway.

For the child abuse case, Tyler’s guilty plea means the dispute over those charges will move into the sentencing phase.

Prosecutors are seeking no more than 30 days behind bars, 12 months of supervised probation, and completion of the parenting program.

The court will ultimately decide whether to accept the proposed sentencing terms.

The case remains a matter of public attention because of Lauren Boebert’s prominent political position and the multiple legal issues involving her son.

The latest development, however, is the plea agreement addressing the child abuse and negligence allegations involving his child.

Mississippi Broadens Death Penalty to Cover Sexual Battery of Young Children
News

Mississippi Broadens Death Penalty to Cover Sexual Battery of Young Children

/

A Mississippi law allowing the death penalty for certain child sexual battery convictions took effect July 1, as reported by Fox News.

Senate Bill 2821 created the offense of “capital sexual battery” for qualifying cases involving victims younger than 12 and defendants 18 or older.

A death sentence is not automatic after conviction. Prosecutors must seek it, and jurors must unanimously find at least two aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt.

At least eight of the 12 jurors must recommend death.

If the jury does not reach that threshold, the defendant receives life in prison without parole.

Tom Homan Puts Dem Leaders On Notice: ‘Get The Hell Out Of The Way’ | Fines-Prison [WATCH]
State Sen. Jeremy England, the bill’s author, said the measure targets the most serious crimes against children.

“That is a crime that, I think, shocks the conscience, certainly. Those are the worst types of crimes against the most innocent of our citizens here in Mississippi,” England said, according to WLBT.

The law expands Mississippi’s death penalty beyond its previous focus on murder convictions.

Critics argue the possibility of an execution could discourage some children from reporting abuse, particularly when the accused is someone they know.

Abraham Bonowitz, executive director of Death Penalty Action, said he previously supported capital punishment but now believes life imprisonment is sufficient.

“There is no need for executions when we can throw away the key,” Bonowitz said.

Bonowitz also questioned whether children would be willing to testify against relatives or other people they know if an execution could result.

“Most of those kinds of crimes are by people that the child knows, and you’re asking a child to then testify against a relative and try to get them executed,” he said.

15 Arrested In Major Child Sex Trafficking Sting In Alabama

Supporters of the law argue that prosecutors should have the option of seeking the maximum punishment in the most serious cases involving children.

Senate Bill 2821 took effect July 1, 2026. Any death sentence imposed under the law is subject to review by the Mississippi Supreme Court.

The law applies only to qualifying offenses and establishes multiple requirements before capital punishment can be imposed.

Fellow Democrat Roasts Francesca Hong After Loss with Brutal Thanksgiving Taunt
News

Fellow Democrat Roasts Francesca Hong After Loss with Brutal Thanksgiving Taunt

/

Francesca Hong’s narrow defeat in Wisconsin’s Democratic gubernatorial primary has sparked reactions from Democrats, Republicans, and political commentators, with some focusing on the progressive candidate’s controversial campaign history and others warning that her strong performance should concern Republicans, as reported by Fox News.

Hong, a Wisconsin state lawmaker from Madison and member of the Democratic Socialists of America, lost the primary this week to Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley.

Crowley defeated Hong by a razor-thin margin after polling had indicated Hong was the apparent favorite heading into the contest.

Hong’s campaign attracted national attention during the race, particularly as Democratic socialist candidates have gained prominence in several states.

Among the issues that followed Hong throughout the campaign were past comments about Thanksgiving and positions involving the U.S. Senate and law enforcement.

Hong previously faced criticism over remarks interpreted as supporting efforts to “cancel” Thanksgiving. She also had to address past calls involving the abolition of the U.S. Senate and police.

After Hong’s defeat, Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., used one of those controversies to needle the defeated candidate.

“Let’s just say it’s a day of Thanksgiving.”

The comment was included in a statement Suozzi sent to CNN following the primary results.

Hong’s loss also prompted criticism from Democratic strategist Anna Greenberg, who questioned whether the candidate had the broader political support necessary for a statewide campaign.

“was a bad candidate without national support,” Greenberg told CNN, adding, “Candidate quality matters!!”

Other political observers argued that Hong’s campaign demonstrated the difficulties faced by Democratic Socialists attempting to move from heavily Democratic urban areas into broader statewide elections.

Tim Graham of the Media Research Center suggested that Hong’s national media appearances may have created additional problems for the campaign, particularly because they forced her to address controversial past statements.

“Some commentators thought she might not have lost if she hadn’t granted interviews to national media outlets at the end, where she had to explain hating Thanksgiving. But if a few minutes of interviews sinks your entire campaign, how talented were you?” Graham told Fox News Digital.

Graham also criticized national media coverage of Democratic Socialist candidates, arguing that major broadcast networks had been slow to pay attention to the movement.

“The broadcast networks have been extremely slow to notice the DSA candidates in all of these states. They ignored Graham Platner and his Nazi tattoo for months on end. They ignored Hong until about a week before the primary.”

Graham continued:

“It feels like she treated these national interviews as a step toward the general election, not a reason to get fired in the primary,” he added. “It’s always funny that the definition of a ‘moderate’ Democrat is anyone who can celebrate Thanksgiving and deplore 9/11.”

While some observers treated Hong’s defeat as evidence that voters rejected a more progressive Democratic agenda, former Trump official Theo Wold offered a different interpretation.

Wold argued that Republicans should pay close attention to how close Hong came to winning the nomination.

“Any Republican who thinks the DSA wave has crested or that DSA candidates can’t win outside of urban areas isn’t paying attention. The correct way to understand last night’s results is that a radical Leftist, with policy views more akin to Trotsky than Jimmy Carter, nearly prevailed in one of the nation’s most closely watched swing states,” he told Fox News Digital.

Wold also argued that Hong’s political positions had support among some voters, while contending that her campaign lacked sufficient backing from working-class voters.

“Hong’s radical views, like those of AOC or Ilhan Omar, are persuasive to a large number of voters, especially naturalized foreign nationals. What Hong lacked was nearly any support from working-class Americans.”

He added:

“The pattern is always the same. DSA candidates run on a platform that they say is for the working class, and then get firmly rejected by actual working-class voters. Because it turns out, socialism is a luxury belief for wealthy, college-educated liberals that people who work with their hands can’t afford,” he added. “The working-class communities I grew up in just want to work a good job and live a good life. They don’t want a politician telling them we need to cancel Thanksgiving or that a Master’s Degree means an expert can organize other people’s lives better.”

Hong conceded the primary to Crowley this week and said she would support him in the general election. Crowley will face Republican Tom Tiffany.

The November contest will carry additional significance for Republicans, who are seeking to win the Wisconsin governor’s race for the first time since 2014.

Hong’s campaign and the reaction to her defeat have therefore become part of a larger discussion about the Democratic Party’s direction, the influence of the Democratic Socialists of America and whether candidates associated with the progressive left can win statewide elections in closely contested states.

The primary result also showed that Hong’s candidacy remained competitive despite the controversy surrounding several of her past statements. While she ultimately fell short against Crowley, the narrow margin has led political figures on both sides to draw different conclusions about what the result means heading into the general election.

Hong’s campaign was contacted for comment, according to Fox News Digital.

Stephen Miller Torches AOC for Laughing Off Woke Ruin and Deadly Consequences [WATCH]
News

Stephen Miller Torches AOC for Laughing Off Woke Ruin and Deadly Consequences [WATCH]

/

White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller criticized Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez after the New York Democrat appeared to make light of the so-called “woke” era during a recent interview with ABC News correspondent Jon Karl, as reported by The Gateway Pundit.

Miller addressed the controversy Wednesday afternoon during an appearance on The Will Cain Show, arguing that Americans should not simply laugh off the political and social consequences associated with policies promoted by the progressive left during that period.

Ocasio-Cortez, widely known as AOC, has been a prominent figure on the Democratic Party’s progressive wing.

Her conversation with Karl has drawn attention as Democrats consider how to position themselves heading into the 2028 presidential campaign.

According to the original report, Ocasio-Cortez discussed the earlier “Woke 1” period during the interview.

Miller took issue with what he viewed as an attempt to treat that period as a subject for humor rather than a time when Americans faced serious problems involving crime, drugs, and public safety.

Miller delivered his criticism in blunt terms.

“Sorry, your husband was m*rdered. Sorry, your mom was killed. Sorry, your loved ones are 6 feet under the ground now. We’re going to have a good laugh about that. It’s sickening. It’s disgusting!”

He continued by listing several problems that he associates with what he called woke ideology.

“The so-called WOKE ideology…a historic increase in shootings, dead bodies, drug overdoses, gangs run AMUCK, citizens living in fear, public spaces seated to violent, thuggish, armed robbers. That was the policy. We’re all going to have a good laugh about that!”

Miller’s comments centered on whether political leaders should be held accountable for policies they previously supported, particularly when those policies involved criminal justice, policing and public safety.

The disagreement comes as Ocasio-Cortez’s national profile remains high and speculation about possible Democratic presidential contenders for 2028 continues.

The original report characterized her interview with Karl as part of an effort to prepare for a potential presidential campaign.

The report also referenced other portions of Ocasio-Cortez’s interview, including discussions involving the Democratic Socialists of America and political commentator Hasan Piker.

Those portions have separately generated criticism from conservatives.

Miller’s appearance gave Republicans another opportunity to argue that voters should remember the political decisions and debates of the previous several years rather than treating them as settled history.

The debate over the “woke” label itself has evolved. Some Democrats have moved away from terminology and positions associated with the movement, while Republicans continue to use the term when discussing crime, policing, drug abuse, and other issues they believe were mishandled under progressive leadership.

The political stakes are significant because Ocasio-Cortez has remained one of the Democratic Party’s most recognizable progressive voices.

Any potential presidential campaign would put renewed attention on her past positions and statements.

Miller, meanwhile, has become one of the Trump administration’s most prominent public defenders.

His criticism of Ocasio-Cortez reflects the broader Republican argument that voters should judge political movements by their results rather than by how quickly politicians try to rename or move beyond them.

Eric Daugherty also highlighted Miller’s remarks in a social-media post, writing:

HOLY CRAP! Stephen Miller just went berserk on people like AOC, LAUGHING OFF the dangers of woke.

The exchange between Miller and Ocasio-Cortez is likely to remain part of the broader political debate heading toward 2028, particularly as both parties attempt to define their records on crime, public safety and government policy.

For Republicans, Miller’s message was straightforward: changing the language surrounding a political era does not necessarily erase the arguments and consequences associated with it.

Democrats, including Ocasio-Cortez, face their own decisions about which parts of that history to defend, explain, or leave behind.

The disagreement also illustrates how the political battles of the past decade continue to shape the next presidential cycle.

With 2028 already entering political discussions, neither side appears eager to surrender the argument over what the country learned from the years that came before.


Scroll to Top